NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/hardware-part1/8383

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 36.3 KB

Path: news.vol.it!news
From: [e-mail] (Fabio Bizzetti)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer,comp.sys.amiga.games,alt.sys.amiga.demos,in,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.graphics
Subject: Re: AB3D II beats Quake....
Date: 25 Mar 1996 04:45:12 GMT
Organization: Video On Line
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4j4jkt$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: molcl15.vol.it
X-Newsreader: THOR 2.22 (Amiga;TCP/IP)


>The PowerAmiga will come with a bunch of PCI slots JUST WAITING TO BE
>FILLED WITH A CARDFUL OF THE CUSTOM CHIPS OF YOUR CHOICE. All it needs is
>a good game API to let you drive them without having to rape the
>hardware. What? Virtual Ridge Rally USA doesn't run fast enough on your
>stock EZ-3D card? Throw in the new VR-HedgeClipperMan-Bonzo-3D card and
>watch it fly!

Hey! This sounds like PC: spend a lot of money every month.
No, thanks. You dont get it, but you're talking about PC's of today thinking
about PowerAmiga.

>The hard part for AT will, of course, be to come up with a good API. One
>of the features of a good API (and one that many of the megacorps' APIs
>are lacking) is for it to be an OPEN API. One where the programmer, if he
>finds that certain useful functions aren't implemented in the current
>API, can add extra functions to it (and document the functions so that
>others can add it to drivers for their own particular flavor of
>hardware). The new functions could even be submitted to the authorities
>(in this case AT) for eventual inclusion into the 'official' API.

The problem is that the only standard gfx mode will be 8bit chunky, since
it would be completely useless to implement 3D sprites in a API when only
1% of gfx boards can run it, and the rest 99% run it at 1/1000 of speed.

It will become like for the A1200's games market: only unexpanded A1200's
games because most of people have this system. For the PowerAmiga, since
the "race to buy the latest 3D card" doesn't fit well with Amiga users,
but only with PC users, will mean that the game for PowerAmiga will all
be optimized for the lamest gfx board: meaning even worse games than AGA.

Congratulations.

>A primitive but significant example of what I'm talking about is Gloom
>Deluxe, or more specifically, the user C2P driver for Gloom Deluxe.

This shows the immagination of you C/C++ programmers:
<< today all games use c2p, so tomorrow every game will use c2p >>.
This is totally wrong.

>The coder of the driver is PERFECTLY WELCOME to rape the hardware to his
>heart's content, because even if his driver isn't compatible with other
>hardware, the documented interface is STILL THERE for someone else to
>write their OWN driver.

This is the best choice indeed.
But, as you see, this still means to *not* use the OS but to write custom
routines for a game (that is not only c2p...).
My games VirtualRally and StarFighter use this system, but nobody said that
the drivers are the same for both VirtualRally and StarFighter.

>An AT-sanctioned game API would include all the useful functions the AT
>programmers could think of.

I am pissing off now, just remembering how the gurus of graphics.library
optimized its functions. I could rewrite it 10 times faster (no joke), and
I would still consider it as crap relatively to the performances it could/
should reach without a generic OS/API.

>After its release, they would examine and
>adapt the home-brew modules that other programmers handed in, so the API
>could continue to grow to suit the needs of more software.

Dream...
I see with no doubts that you are not a realtime applications programmer.
Being the master of C++ and OS doesn't give you the right point of view to
judge what we are talking about.

I am sorry if I sound "offensive", I really dont want, but I need to be
incisive because this topic is the one that will play the future of the Amiga.
C/C++ programmers should stay home programming OS applications, and leave
realtime games programmers to analyze API problems.

Sorry, I hope you understand how serious is the situation.

>>Commodore didn't die because they spent all their money to make new custom
>>chips: Commodore died because they didn't spend money to make new custom
>>chips.
>>
>>Is it so difficult to understand?

>Commodore died as a result of many different mistakes. Lack of coherent
>R&D <-> Production was one of them.

Come on.. you dont want to admit what is evident?

>But if that were the only problem, the A1000 would've stormed the market
>in 1985.

Mah!

>>Wouldn't the Amiga be the most sold games machine (with best market) if we
>>had AAA when it was time to have it (lotsa years ago)? Wouldn't the Amiga
>>(both high-end and low-end) have *no competition* if 3 years ago (when
>>PowerMac did born), or also today, it had HP-PA Hombre?

>No, not necessarily. Remember when the CDTV was released? It was the most
>advanced console available at the time. It DIDN'T sell like hotcakes.

WHAT??? IT SUCKED.
If it was the only one available, I dont care.
I dont buy a thing that sucks bigtime only because "it's the only one
available".
Anyway, you're wrong again: everything was better than a CDTV, even a NES, at
least at the eyes of "common public".

>>Commodore died because they delayed the technology improvements.
>>Commodore died because while the market (not only computers) had a huge
>>demand of highperformances/lowcost chips, it missed all the opportunities.

>Commodore died because the Amiga was never successful in dominating the
>majority of the computer market, weakening C= so that what would be
>serious but survivable fuckups for Micro$oft instead became fatal wounds.

Again! :D
The A500 in 1990 was a *SUCCESS*.
Commodore made the wrong move to not wish better performances, as you all are
doing today about API/OS. But you dont know what's realtime games programming,
no need to say it.

This is sad: I never said what is right or wrong for Unix or Lisp or ADA or
whatever I am not expert of.

>>Watch "The Deathbed Vigil" about all the missed occasions.

>Yeah. Does make ya mad, doesn't it?

>But then, Dave Haynie was the designer of most of those projects that were
>shelved. As I recall, you posted a message saying that Dave wasn't the
>'visionary' everyone says he is.

A person is not God or a lamer.
Personally, I've a big esteem of Dave Haynie, but it doesn't mean that if he
comes and tells me that my 3D routine sucks because is not written in C++ I
must agree with him. The problem is that as far as I know he is not a realtime
games programmer, and thus he *cannot* have a global vision of this problem.

He still has all my esteem, and I listen what he says with extreme attention:
because I know that at least he thinks about it, unlike many users or C/C++
programmers (I dont wanna make a cathegory now) that are only good to repeat
that coders suck, not knowing neither what the coders do or not do.

>>Escom/AT is sincerely acting *worse* than the Commodore of 1991.

>But distinctly better than the Commodore of 1994.

Remember, this is still to prove.

>>They're blind, accustomed to sell PC's to people that would buy *anything*.
>>But the Amiga is not attractive for these standard users, and will always
>>be seen as the most silly way to risk money and time.

>I think you're getting AT and Escom confused here. AT operates ENTIRELY
>INDEPENDENTLY OF ESCOM. Escom hands over the money, but they don't give
>the orders.

The problem is this.
The budget.

>>>Heh, are you implying that the OS isn't lacking?  How about these: >
>>>* Virtual Memory.
>>>* Memory Protection.
>>>* Resource Tracking.
>>>* A decent file system.
>>
>>Now they've to convert the whole OS from 680x0 to PowerPC, and it'll take
>>ages, will be full of bugs: and the final result will not be considerably
>>better than before, but much more complex.

>So? We've got to cure our hardware-dependence at some point.

I see you were ill: allergic to *good programmers*, also known as coders.
You wanna exterminate them?

Whenever I decide to program the hardware by myself is *not* because I like
it: it's because the OS, *ANY* OS sucks bigtime compared to what I can do by
myself, starting killing that damn OS calls overhead (imagining the rest is
time free).

>It's a painful step, but one that must be taken. Fortunately we're not the
>first, and we can draw on Apple's experience to make our transition less
>buggy and painful.

Apple, the one in the tomb?

>>Instead, adding the HP-PA subsystem would have made all *simple*, logical,
>>immediate, simple, performant...

>Noone is stopping you from dropping in an HP-PA on a PCI card. Design the
>card, plug it in, and write the drivers.

Yes, and run at 1/10 speed, just to make all the efforts useless. ;->

>You could even develop Hombre-esque functions for it.

Yeah, with WritePixel() or only Hombre compatible. At this point it's again
senseless to not program the hardware by myself.

>>>* An attractive, consistent GUI.
>>
>>Perfectly handled by the HombreHP-PA, parallely.

>With a good RTG API, perfectly handled by whatever capable hardware you
>want, parallely.

Yeah, sure. Write it.

>>>* A good API and strong developers tools.
>>
>>Adding the HombreHP-PA would have made it practically 0 overhead, thus used
>>by all Amiga games programmers: when a needed function wouldn't have been
>>found in the API, the programmer would have created it, and released a
>>patch for all users (and games programmers) that then would have been
>>integrated in the next OS revision, rom or disk.

>WHOAH! YOU UNDERSTAND! Sort of.

There're 2 kind of lamers:

1) Pseudo "coders"; assembly programmers that are only good to make shits.
2) Pseudo "programmers"; C/C++ programmers that are only good to throw shit.

I am more likely in the 3rd one: who always tryes to have a global, equilibrate
vision of the problem and looks for the most wise solution.
As I always said, in my experience this has meant only 100% OS programming for
applications/utilities, and allocating legally the gfx/audio hardware and then
programming it my myself, still using as much OS as possible (always Dos,
sometimes other stuffs).

Is it too much for you to understand?

I am not in the OS nor in the against-OS side: I am just realistic, and I think
that not many people have huge experience in both OS applications programming
and (2D/3D) realtime games programming.

Have you?

>At first glance, this would appear to be exactly what I as saying above,
>but aparrently you think that you can't have an API without Hombre.
>That's weird, as the whole point of an API is that you can run it on ANY
>hardware, not just a single custom chip(set).

You're living in the theory, as always.
Make your API, then test realtime stuffs on it.
Then get a dose of realism back from all the useless work you made for the API.
*ANY* API.

>A device-independent API doesn't NEED Hombre to develop. Hombre might be
>a nice piece of hardware to write a driver for, but it would be cheaper and
>easier to use off the shelf hardware (say a SVGA display, a normal [not
>Hombre] HP-PA as a copper, and maybe another for 3D) to make a kick ass
>copro/display card. But because we're doing this through an API, we don't
>NEED that specific card, and the software would run on any other system with
>varying levels of performance depending on the supporting hardware.

All theory, showing your extreme lack of experience.

>>Upgrading/changing the whole RISC subsystem would have been possible and
>>easy.

>Yeah! And you wouldn't NEED that SPECIFIC subsystem!

>>>* Device independance.
>>
>>2 subsystems: Amiga 680x0 and RISC HP-PA Hombre (one or more), where the AGA
>>would have been emulated by the Hombre (providing that it is not a fucking
>>SVGA standard chip: it's the state of the art techonology, able to emulate
>>AGA's copper as nothing).

>Emulating AGA should be an option for users who are upgrading from older
>Amigas. We shouldn't be FORCED into using hardware that doesn't suit are
>needs (though a kick ass card fast enough to emulate AGA would certainly
>be great for other things!)

>>>Last but not least, where are our developers and publishing houses?
>>
>>As I said before, I (an extreme Amiga "fanatic") will not code for a *PC*
>>with PowerPC cpu and no market rather than for a PC with a 80686 cpu and a
>>huge market. Just because it has the sticker "Amiga" doesn't make it
>>different than what it is: a *IBM PC*.

>Then you must consider PowerMacs to be IBM PCs?

It is, even less than PowerAmiga though.
But you miss the point that Mac already was, that's why I bought an AMIGA.

>Try using a Pentium system running Windoze, then try a PowerMac. The
>experience is totally different. Why? Becuase the OS is the soul of the
>machine!

For you applications' users for sure.
Nothing more wrong for all games/video/multimedia users.

>It's what makes the machine behave in the way that it does. The
>OS WHAT MAKES THAT PARTICULAR "COMPUTER" DIFFERENT.

Mah!
why? doesn't the Amiga hardware make it "slightly" different than PC hardware?
Hello? Anyone home? =) ;)))

>You can think of coprocessors are essentially just software implemented in
>hardware. Or you could think of support code as coprocessors implented in
>software!

or an API in hardware.. :D

>Look at UAE, using it you can have an Amiga on a Pentium Pro!

HAHHHAHAHAHAHHA =))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Phrase of the year :DDDD :D =)) 8) :) =)

>Now admittedly the amount of resources wasted on implementing OCS in
>hardware makes the overall experience not very impressive, but it shows
>that coprocessors aren't "magic".

Maybe you didn't know, but *everything* can be emulated. Only time can't.

Perhaps for you getting a game in 25frames/hour is fine, you call "LightWave"
game. I prefer to get LightWave in 25 frames/sec.

>By standardizing how we interface with coprocessors, we can free
>ourselves from being stuck to a certain line of coprocessors, even to the
>point of handing the work over to the CPU if it has enough oomph to push
>it.

You can't imagine how many times I dreamed this, how many times I tryed to
write my "standard" libraryes.
Then I realized why it's all useless.

>The world is FULL of coprocessors, and while individually they may not be as
>"cool" as AAA or Hombre, with a device-independent API we're free to mix and
>match them until we can make a system that kicks the ass of any custom
>chipset we ever dreamed of earlier.

Yeah, you pay for ours?

>The only way AT could ever HOPE to compete by becoming a custom chip
>manufacturer would be to have a huge outlay of cash from Escom
>(semiconductor plants cost a LOT, even to contract), and then produce
>development tools for the chipset so that the resulting display card
>could be used on any operating system. Of course then you'd see people
>running Windoze on it and you'd yell and kick and scream that it wasn't
>really an Amiga chipset then.

AGAIN: "Amiga chipset" does *NOT* mean any chipset with the sticker "Amiga".

>You see, big-name chip manufacturers like Cirrus make money by selling
>chips to ALL markets, Intel-boxes, Macintoshes, DEC boxes, BeBoxes, and
>yes, even the Amiga. They generate a whole dumpload of revenue that gets
>poured back into R&D to make new and faster chipsets (they can't afford
>stop and rest, as their competitors are developing too!).

Standard chipsets? They all suck.
You can say they're good only if you compare them to OCS.

Get 1996's OCS: 3DO-M2. It's hundreds times better than the best standard chip.

>Now imagine if Cirrus produced their latest kick-ass chipset ONLY FOR THE
>AMIGA. Even if it destroyed everyone else, they'd soon fall behind
>because the revenue from just the Amiga market wouldn't be able to fund
>the kind of R&D that the other all-market companies would be wielding.

>The reason the Amiga's custom chipset was so far ahead in 1985 (and AAA
>would've been in 1992) was that the competetive graphics coprocessor
>market is a very recent thing.

Yeah, this shows again how much you know what you're talking about.

>Back then there wasn't any competition
>because stupid marketroids didn't see a need for it, and small
>dedicated groups of geniuses were able to design and release stuff that
>blew away the competition.

>In a way, small dedicated groups of geniuses could still design a kick
>ass chipset on paper, but without a massive R&D budget to fund the
>facilities for prototypes, and an even bigger budget to fund startup
>production, and an even BIGGER amount of revenue from a large market to
>allow the per-unit cost of the chipset to be competetive, there would be
>no way for these small dedicated groups of geniuses to compete.

Sure... =:^) :D

>>Now imagine who never cared about the Amiga: what economical interests will
>>the developer see in the PowerAmiga?? If he is mad, he can risk all for the
>>BeBox: but also if he doesn't lose money and sells as much as practically
>>possible, he will *never* earn more than he can do on the PC with Windows96
>>or anything else. And developing programs on Windows95 and then recompiling
>>them on PowerAmiga OS, although not realistically possible without changes,
>>will still be a crap conversion. A buyer gets a PC and gets the software
>>instead of its shadow.

>OK, but the same applies even if the Amiga had TOTALLY DIFFERENT
>hardware? Why program for the Amiga when you could program for the bigger
>market?

Because the Amiga was *original*.

>Sure the Amiga might have a neat chipset, but there are neat
>chipsets for other platforms too, and they would have device-independent
>APIs so you could use the cool chipsets without having to worry about
>compatibility.

Sure, typical Basic/Pascal/C++ "programmer" thought.
Basic/Pascal/C++ "programmers" dont even know how a computer works inside.

Mah! this is all sad indeed..

>People would write software for the Amiga because it offered a pleasing
>environment, and that's what the OS provides. Take away the OS and you
>have nothing more than a console. (Or even less than a console, if you
>use the PSX, with its device-independent API as an example)

HAHAHA =))))
Exactly the same thing! :D

Are you a PSX developer?

>>Remove the Amiga's heart: you get nothing.

>The heart of the Amiga is the lean, mean OS. Custom chips are icing on the
>cake. They do lots of neat things but you can do the same things with
>other hardware or hardware/software combinations.

>>>> : The A1000/A500 and A2000 were dream computers IMO because of
>>>> : their custom chips and architecture, not because of the lame
>>>> : 1.0/1.1/1.2 OS.

>(Oops, I deleted the attribute for these quotes... Oh well.)

>Back in 1985/6 OS 1.0/1.1/1.2 was not lame. It was the most revolutionary
>and amazing OS for the home computer market. By today's standards, OS 3.1
>is more "lame" than OS 1.2 was by 1986 standards.

yes, I see you didn't use OS 1.0/1.1
a wonderful OS.

>>>> Yeah, right... Maybe in 1985. Today the custom chips is the
>>>> weakest part of the Amiga architecture.
>>
>>Again: why you talk about 1985 custom chips in the 1996?
>>Who ever said that it's normal and sane to have them today?
>>Amiga custom chipset+ is not SVGA, it's AAA, AAAA, Hombre. NOT SVGA.

>GREAT. *YOU* figure out how we can make a new kick-ass custom chipset
>with the resources AT has. And more importantly, *HOW* do we keep
>competetive with newer updates while maintaining compatibility.

Because standard chips suck so much compared to custom chipsets, that making
today a *wise* chipset, you could use it for 5 years, and plan hardware
compatibility since NOW.
What you talk about API/OS is nowadays true also about chips. Having so many
transistors you lose the "overhead" of versatile functions.
Nowadays things like 12/24bits palette structure can be fully avoided, you
dont have to save transistors when it comes to make registers.
You can design the chip as 64bits, also if you implement the first version as
only 32bits. You can do a chipset, and a family of fully hardware compatible
chipsets that will last for 20 years.
Just dont call C++ programmers to take technical advices.

>I'd be fucking ecstatic to see AAAA, or even AAA, but it ain't gonna
>happen because there's no realistic way for AT to produce it without it
>costing twice as much as the new 192-bit (I'm not kidding) ultra fast 3D gfx
>chipsets that would blow "AAAA" away.

>>It's sooooo naive to say that the Amiga has to become a IBM PC because the
>>A500's gfx chip today are obsolete. Who ever promised "you'll have to use
>>them for the eternity"? The OS evolves, the hard-disks evolve, the ram
>>evolves, the cpu evolves. Now it's time to evolv the *custom* chips, not to
>>throw everything out of the window (projects included) and buy a IBM PC,
>>change the CPU, put the sticker "Amiga" and run a fake AmigaOS clone.

>It's sooooo naive to think that it's possible to make these fancy new
>chipsets with practically nil capital to start with, no production
>facilities, no way of getting them, and finally expecting to pay off the
>costs if you somehow managed to pull it off with only the revenue from a
>single niche market of dedicated but few Amiga users.

It can be done: simply improving the existing technology.

>It's also naive to think that hardware what makes a computer system.

Yeah. Read the definition:

Computer = hardware.
OS = system software.

>Granted, hardware defines the maximum theoretical capabilities of a
>system,

? :D

and it's *far* away from what the theorically best API/OS could ever allow.
Tens times worse, unless you write Basic/Pascal/C++ programs for WorkBench,
as I said before.

>but it's up to the OS to actually get the performance OUT of the
>hardware into something we can use!

Talking about games and realtime video applications?

>Compare a Pentium running Windoze,
>OS/2, and a UNIX clone (Linux, FreeBSD?). There's a world of difference
>between them. They, in effect, make the machine a DIFFERENT COMPUTER.
>They alter the capabilities of the system and the way we interface with
>it. They can't give more than the hardware can supply, but they use the
>hardware IN DIFFERENT WAYS to make the overall effect something
>completely different!

Yeah, for games and realtime video applications..

Sarchasm Mode OFF.

>>>I would actually say that at this point, the weakest part of the Amiga
>>>platform is its manufacturer.  The OS and the hardware run an equal
>>>second.
>>
>>>> What other _viable_ and _affordable_ CPU would YOU choose for
>>>> the Amiga ?
>>
>>HP-PA due to the optimal relationship HP and Commodore had, and due to its
>>extremely fast FloatingPoint capabilities, and due to its upgradability
>>(HP-PA is a family of processors, all damn faster than most other RISCs),
>>due to the unique possibility to customize also the CPU (as HP offers).

>Great idea! When the AmigaOS is fully portable, you're welcome to USE the
>HP-PA family. But that won't be for a while! Right now it's more
>important to use the CPU which we can get up and running IN THE LEAST
>AMOUNT OF TIME, and that's the PowerPC, because no other CPU has had the
>tools for migrating from a 680x0 platform developed to the same extent.

HP-PA had. Apollo systems where 680x0 based.
You're wrong again. Congratulations.

>HP-PA, DEC Alpha, MIPS, ARM etc. versions of AmigaOS come later.

Who damn wants only the OS? The OS must serve the computer ( = HARDWARE ),
not viceversa. You're a bit confused.

You'll sell your car to get some gasoline for ...
Ops!

>>If you want more, then it's not of this world.

>By the time the AmigaOS is fully portable, it may well be. ;->

Oh, and I want MicroSoft's AmigaBasic ported!!!! To *overwork* all the mega
mighty *possibilities* of the virtual computer called AmigaOS!

>>>HP-PA, Sparc, Alpha, in fact, name your processor... if only AT would cut
>>>the AmigaOS losses, move a long way to portable source (instead of taking
>>>the cheap-shot option with 68k emulation on the PPC).

>The "cheap-shot" option is only a temporary crutch until the whole thing
>is in portable code. Later on they'll be able to compile AmigaOS for
>whatever CPU you want.

Yeah, cool!!!!
An OS written all in C!!!!
WOW!!!!!
Why dont we write it in Basic? So I can run AmigaOS in my pocket calculator
and *PLAY* with it.

O:)

>>Look: if you have a car, you can change motor and put a better one, and so
>>on. AT/Escom waited when you weren't watching, changed the whole car,
>>painted it again like the old one, and tryed to give you the same cockpit.
>>This car is exactly the one you always hated, except for the cockpit and the
>>color.

>Who cares what kind of engine its running on? If the car goes faster than
>the old one and costs less, I wouldn't.

Again, I said changing the engine is ok. Changing the whole car is not the
same thing. Did you read what I wrote untill now?

>Furthermore, the whole point of device-independence is to let you put
>whatever engine you please in the car, and add whatever options you want
>and have them all work properly.

Yeah, the OS = the tires.

>And by letting you use standard cases, you can also pick your frame, AND
>your paint job! :->

Theoric dreams again..

>>I would complain hard.

>I'd be happy at having a car with better performance without having to
>lose the old interior that I'm so comfortable with.

Mah, no you didn't read what I wrote.

>>>> : Well,from the deepest of my heart: FUCK OFF AT,
>>>> : you made it all become useless.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. This is just the constructive feedback AT needs. NOT!
>>
>>For what I've seen untill now, "constructive" and "AT/Escom" are two words I
>>wouldn't put together without feeling a foolish.

>They're a hell of a lot more constructive than Commodore turned out to be.

Still to be proved.

>>"Have faith, wait more": this is old, and became obsolete now.
>>There's a limit, when you see things how really are, there's no way anymore
>>to hope.

>Don't "have faith". Instead wake up

zzZz...

ehh!?

ah..

zzZz :D

>and look at what parts of the Amiga
>we can realistically save.

The tires =)

> And when I look at its obnoxious level of
>dependence on expensive hardware that can only be produced by one company
>that has no hope of ever surpassing the competition (unless it gets a big
>influx of capital and sells to non-Amiga markets), I realize that we
>can't save the Amiga-only custom hardware, at least on the hardware-raper
>level.

sure, you contraddict again yourself.
you'll see how many nice things you'll need to buy to use *practically* your
computer.

>What we CAN save is the awesome OS, which lets us get MORE out of our
>hardware than the competition.

Yeah!!!!
AmigaOS written in interpreted C will do the job!!!

=)

> All we have to do is get it running on the
>same (likely) or better (less likely) hardware, and we'll wind up with a
>better machine.

:D

>We can also use off-the-shelf chips in interesting combinations to make
>neato custom chipsets, provided that we don't try to rape them and thus
>lock ourselves into having to be compatible with them for all eternity.

"rape them"??
programming a chip directly is the most lovely and grateful thing you can do
to it. Using a fucking fascist OS isn't.

>>And my anger was completely justified by all the money I wasted and lost
>>(instad of earning much more than the one I've spent) because I "waited and
>>hoped".

>Were you expecting to make lots of money on the Amiga? :-)

Do you think I stayed on the Amiga for business????

>Maybe your hopes are being dashed by market realities, but the
>alternative is to pursue a completely capitalist route and go off into
>the sad world of Macro$loth, and I don't think you really want to do that.

Yeah, finally something you understood. ;)

No offence please, it's 5:30am and I am still writing this reply. O;)

>Better to be forced to occasionally bow to market pressure than to prostrate
>yourself completely at the feet of Emperor Gates.

>>So mine was a very constructive remark: if AT is reading this, it should
>>consider that many developers dont trust them anymore, because now it's
>>clear what their future plans are, and only Escom's business likes them:
>>they'll be the first company able to sell *IBM PC's* to ex "fanatic" Amiga
>>users.

>The day you take a Power Amiga, boot up the Amiga OS, and then wind up
>seeing an MS/DOS prompt or a windoze logo, I'll believe you when you
>call it an IBM PC. (Unless you're running PC-Task, of course! ;->)

Hey! I've PC-Task and I still call it an AMIGA.

>>Sure some people will still prefer to hope to get the same Windows'95
>>utilities compiled for the PowerAmiga, but this is all the PAmiga market
>>and reason to exist. I believe Escom thinks:
>>"He doesn't want to buy my PC? I sell him the one with the other CPU and
>>the stickers that I bought nearly for free at that auction sale. WOW:
>>I sell my PC's to every people, this is business".

>You call a Power Amiga an MS/DOS-compatible with another CPU.

>Then my A4000 is just an MS/DOS compatible with another CPU and a weird
>A/V card soldered to the motherboard.

hahahaha =))))))))
what a pity that this card contains an AMIGA and not lame standard cloned chips.

>If I soldered AGA on a Pentium motherboard and ported the OS would it
>suddenly be an Amiga?

Yeah, with another CPU. But you dont know that AGA has been made with 680x0 in
mind: memory mapped instead of i/o mapped, registers writeable with a single
32bit move, and so on.

Again, you dont know what you're talking about.
Congratulations.

Did I ever tell what C++ compiler is better?
I dont talk about things I am not expert about, but this quality seems totally
missed in the "Gods" C/C++ programmers.

>>>Essentially, AT is giving the existing users that very message.  They're
>>>alienating existing users in order to sell to supposed new markets.  Well,
>>>here's where my unwavering support ends I'm afraid.  I'll keep my existing
>>>system as my favourite old companion and novelty,
>>
>>I was waiting for PowerAmiga, but since it's a PC I just bought a 68060 for
>>my Amiga, and will develop on my Amiga all the games for it and for 80x86
>>PC, to get some earning from this last (job) and to keep my passion for
>>Amiga
>>(hobby). It's much better to work on Amiga, developing and testing
>>algorithms, making graphics and sounds, then re "compile" my HLA sources and
>>data for PC. The 68060 is the best, I dont want a crap buggy slow PowerPC to
>>do the same.

>Er, don't call the PowerPC slow when even the slowest 601/66 is faster than
>your 68060.

Are you sure?
For what applications? Assembly written or just C compiled with the feet?

>If you're really glued to AGA, you could just as well stick a PhaseV PPC
>card in your A1200. :-) Whoah.

?

WHO wants normal AGA in 1996?
Isn't it time to add some features to it?

>>>and I'm moving on to a
>>>Sparcstation, and a portable Mac.  That way I can actually get things
>>>done, and still play with my Amiga, writing a program here and there.  I
>>>sincerely hope that AT finds a new market, and I regret that the direction
>>>that they're following no longer suits my needs.
>>
>>Neither mine and of all the people that left the Amiga (I will publish all
>>my games and programs also for 680x0 Amiga untill at least a single
>>publisher wants them, (there're only 2 or 3 left to be sincere) because I
>>will make them for my internal use though, also in the year 2002), and
>>there's a lot of people that will leave the Amiga market soon just because
>>it's always smaller and smaller

>The shrinking market is unfortunate, but......

>>while piracy is growing.

>WHAT!?!?!!?!?! How the hell do you figure this?

>I would think that all the hard-core pirates would go to a market where
>there was more software to pirate!

Again, you're wrong and you dont know what you're talking about.
The so called "crackers" (the heart of pirate industry) normally dont get 1
dollar from their work. And also a dumb is able to copy, then.

>Please explain yourself.

Done.

>>While Motorola abandoned 680x0, Intel has not abandoned 80x86, that will
>>never die IMO (I am technically sure about it).

>Actually, pre-386 code will probably die with the P7 (it's already on the
>back burner in the P6), and there's talk of making a complete shift to a
>new architecture after the P7.

Is it a problem for anybody if 8088 code dies?
Again, you're fixed with the word "compatibility" in mind, and just because
one asks AGA compatibility in AGA+, you think that he would wish 8088
compatibity in 80786.

Mah v3.0!!!!

>>It was time to *add* a HP-PA to the Amiga.

>Once the code is fully portable, this will happen.

Nope.

C is slow as hell, and if you say "it's fast enough with a 700Mhz CPU" then
I tell you that also assembly becomes faster with the 700Mhz CPU.
You're running away from your shadow: ASM will always be losta faster and
better than C.

With all the experience I made, coding in ASM is like coding in Basic.
I am a programmer, you are a programmer: the difference is that you want it
all easy, while I want it performant.

Maybe I am a better programmer?

Assembly or not.

>>IMO the PowerAmiga experiment will finish soon, Escom will reconvert the
>>machines to run PowerMac software, still using Commodore name for PC's and
>>Amiga name for RISC PC's.

>I highly doubt they would sell an "Amiga" that didn't run AmigaOS.

>> Names.

>Operating Systems.

Operative System = system SOFTWARE (assembly(compiler(sources(poor humans))))
Computer = HARDWARE (boards(chips(semiconductors(atoms)))).

>>The PowerAmiga will have more IBM chips inside than a Pentium has today.

>Actually, the current run of AGA chips is manufactured at IBM plants
>(Selectron and QuikPak do the PCBs and assembly)

And so????????????
Do I cut my dick now? ;D

>>>The amount of support that AT is getting from the users which it primarily
>>>intends to make money from is ridiculous, I've never seen anything like
>>>it.  Most companies actually need to give something back to the users to
>>>keep them loyal and ready to spend.
>>
>>>Peter Naylor
>>
>>
>>PS: [nothing] Pet,Vic20,C64,Amiga,(philosophy changes),AGA-Amiga [nothing]
>>
>>Thanks Commodore, you've *been* the best of all untill business destroyed
>>you.

>The Amiga has nothing to do with the Pet, Vic20, and C64. Commodore
>merely bought and altered the Amiga. They had nothing to do with the
>basic architecture. The Amiga is NOT a descendent of the C64 aside from
>the fact that a lot of old 64 users upgraded to it.

I know Amiga's story: the facts remains that Commodore influenced its
development and made it identifyable as the best Commodore machine ever made.

>>BTW: It's official: Dave Haynie is *NOT* moving to Germany, nor working for
>>AT. He personally corrected the rumor, saying an equivalent of "dont trust
>>rumors, there's rarely something true in them".

>Well, at least he's doing some consulting for them, so he'll have SOME
>hand in the design of the PowerAmiga.

Consult: "Throw it out". :D


>>|           Stop that fucking imperialist embargo against Cuba.
>>|           |
>>|                 Hasta Siempre Comandante Che Guevara.
>>|                 |

>BTW, I favor socialism as well, but we can't ignore capitalist rules when we
>live in a capitalist economy.

Yes, very sad thought.

>Oh, and I can't wait to see Virtual Rally! ;->

Yes, very happy thought. ;))

It doesn't support API, sorry ;)
It supports every gfx card though, with custom gfx drivers that will not be
good for StarFighter: maybe for VirtualRally2; not for any different game.

This is the most wise and equilibrated games programming.

>-----
>James Sellman -- Idaho State University           | "Lum, did you just see
>--------------------------------------------------|  a hentai rabbit flying
>[e-mail]   |    // A4000/40 14 megs  |  through the air?"
>[e-mail]|  \X/  A500/20 3 megs    |    - Miyake Shinobu


bibi

36713 bytes after. 8-P


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            |
|           Stop that fucking imperialist embargo against Cuba.              |
|                 Hasta Siempre Comandante Che Guevara.                      |
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
|    Fabio "Maverick" Bizzetti - [e-mail] - Maverick* at IRC     |
|              The maker of "CyberMan" and "Virtual Karting"                 |
|   working on "Virtual Rally" and "StarFighter", the 3D game that will      |
|                        bring the Amiga to the top                          |
|                                                                            |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------